布鲁盖尔-The-fiscal-implications-of-a-banking-union_8页_563kb

Summary of "THE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF A BANKING UNION"

Core Content

The document "THE FISCAL IMPLICATIONS OF A BANKING UNION" by Jean Pisani-Ferry and Guntram B. Wolff discusses the financial and fiscal challenges of establishing a banking union in the Euro Area. It highlights the interconnectedness between banking and sovereign risks, and the need for a coordinated approach to reduce the potential for systemic banking crises and their associated fiscal costs.

Main Views

• Systemic Banking Crises and Fiscal Costs: Systemic banking crises can impose significant fiscal burdens on countries, especially in the Euro Area, where the feedback loop between banks and sovereigns has led to financial instability and economic fragmentation.
• Need for a Banking Union: The Euro Area Summit of June 2012 called for a banking union to break this negative feedback loop, with a focus on common supervision, resolution arrangements, and a fiscal backstop.
• Fiscal Backstop Importance: A credible fiscal backstop is essential to ensure financial stability, as it allows for the recapitalisation of banks and the prevention of bank runs, which can affect market perceptions of sovereign solvency.
• Fiscal Consequences of Banking Crises: Banking crises tend to be more severe in developed economies, with higher fiscal costs and longer durations. The resolution regime significantly affects the magnitude of these costs.
• Incentive Problems: A robust banking union must address the incentive problems that arise from the potential socialisation of losses, which can encourage irresponsible banking policies.

Key Information

Fiscal Costs of Banking Crises

• Banking crises in advanced economies have an average duration of 3 years, output loss of 33% of GDP, and direct fiscal costs of 3.8% of GDP.
• In the Euro Area, the cumulative output loss reached 23% by the end of 2011, and direct fiscal costs were estimated at 3.9% of GDP.
• Resolution policies that involve open-ended liquidity support, regulatory forbearance, and unlimited depositor guarantees significantly increase fiscal costs.

Why Banking Union Should Reduce Fiscal Vulnerabilities

• Banking union can help reduce the negative feedback loop between banks and sovereigns in three ways: protecting individual sovereigns, pooling risk, and facilitating bail-ins.
• A well-designed banking union would equalise funding conditions for banks, which in turn helps the transmission of monetary policy and reduces economic disparities across countries.
• European banks are more exposed to country-specific risks due to their heavy domestic lending and asset holdings, making them vulnerable to national cycles.

Structure of a Banking Union

• A banking union is built on four pillars: supervision, deposit insurance, resolution, and a common fiscal backstop.
• Centralised supervision and resolution are crucial for the credibility and consistency of the union.
• Deposit insurance, while important for consumer protection and financial stability, is not a primary concern for fiscal sustainability, as current deposit guarantee schemes are insufficient for systemic crises.

Options for a Common Fiscal Backstop

1. European Resolution Fund:

   • A fund pre-funded by a levy on financial institutions.
   • Advantages: Credible, pre-funded, and immediately available.
   • Disadvantages: May not be politically feasible in the short term, and challenges exist in finding safe assets for liquidation.

2. Ex-ante Burden-Sharing Agreement:

   • A clear rule for distributing fiscal costs between national taxpayers and European partners.
   • Based on the ECB capital key or the size of each country's banking sector.
   • Requires strong institutions to ensure credibility and time consistency.

3. European Stability Mechanism (ESM):

   • Already operational, with sufficient resources to cover the median direct fiscal cost of a banking crisis (4% of GDP).
   • Disadvantages: Cannot provide ex-ante guarantees or blanket support in all cases.
   • Advantages: Operational, with existing resources and governance mechanisms.

4. Contingent European Taxation:

   • A long-term option that allows the Euro Area to raise funds through taxation in case of a systemic crisis.
   • Requires significant political and institutional development and is unlikely to gain broad support in the short term.

Legacy Issues

• Legacy problems complicate the establishment of a common fiscal backstop due to varying banking system conditions and sovereign risks.
• Delaying resolution increases the overall problem and costs, as seen in Japan's experience.
• Fairness requires that legacy costs be borne by those who failed to exercise appropriate surveillance.
• Mutualisation of legacy costs may be necessary, especially when banking problems affect the entire monetary union.

Conclusion

A banking union is essential to reduce the mutual reinforcement of banking and sovereign risks in the Euro Area. It requires a common supervisor, a strong resolution framework, and a credible fiscal backstop. While the ESM is the preferred short-term option, a more comprehensive solution, such as a European Resolution Fund, is desirable in the long term. Addressing legacy issues is also crucial, and careful design is needed to ensure that fiscal backstop mechanisms do not create perverse incentives. The ultimate goal is to enhance financial stability and reduce the fiscal burden of banking crises across the Euro Area.